Roald Dahl books have been edited to remove the word "female" along with other edits.

[GoChasingWaterfalls]

www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-to-remove-language-deemed-offensive?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

It's literary terrorism.

Much as I love Dahl's books, I wouldn't put them in the same category as Shakespeare.
Someone has already pointed out, the original text is still the original text as written by Roald Dahl. What we're seeing here is a modern edit. One doesn't cancel out the other. You might find it unacceptable and other people might not.
It's a very modern take in storytelling to riff off another person's work and write fiction based on someone else's characters and world building - some people love it, some are appalled.
Abridged versions of novels have been around for many years - takes nothing away from the full versions, but makes them more accessible to younger readers/readers who would find the unabridged version hard going. Still an enjoyable read but quite a different version.
My personal take on this particular issue is as long as the edits are recognised and the text is sold as an edited version that's ok. We shouldn't pretend thisis the story and the original unedited version should also be available.
It's an interesting contrast to when an author edits their work. Popular Gen Z author Alice Oseman (haven't read it myself, but she wrote Heartstopper, amongst others) has changed quite a lot in one of her earlier books written and published when she was a teenager - she's apparently heavily edited some passages around self harming as her older self wanted to change it.

The Times and the Telegraph have had pieces recently about current authors being told to rewrite after sensitivity readers have reviewed them. Kate Clanchy was told she couldn’t call the Taliban terrorists as they were in government, she couldn’t compare Scotland’s bings — spoil heaps — to boils as that might be offensive to acne sufferers.

Writing Diversely is an agency that provides sensitivity readers. One reader is described as a “Bisexual genderfluid, light-skinned brown Mexican, self-diagnosed autistic, as well as with EDS [Ehlers-Danlos syndromes], depression, and anxiety”

Publishers are afraid of being caught in a Twitter storm so they use sensitivity readers for insurance and books are become more anodyne.

There are many, many, versions of The Old Testament

Sensitivity readers. Ugh. Are we in 1984.

What, you think a great work of art suddenly becomes not so if we change our cultural mores? And you lack the ability to see past that?? Really??? I feel sorry for you.

But I’m not prepared to sit back and let you and others like you take art away from others. And I’m also not prepared to let you infantilise others and not trust them to be able to read or view art with a critical mind.

It would suit some, I know, to gradually remove the ability of children to think critically. But others of us recognise it as important and will fight to retain the right of children to be taught that skill.

And is that a good thing? It was changed to suit agendas too.

The author is dead. The ownership has transferred.

Apparently to Netflix?

Netflix is a commercial organisation. They will make commercial decisions.

Utterly ludicrous isn't it? And incorrect.

It's a very modern take in storytelling to riff off another person's work and write fiction based on someone else's characters and world building - some people love it, some are appalled.

That's not what is happening here. This isn't fan fiction, or Wide Sargasso Sea. It's censorship. Bowdlerisation. Sanitisation. Writing over. Erasing (or attempting to erase) the original work.

Popular Gen Z author Alice Oseman (haven't read it myself, but she wrote Heartstopper, amongst others) has changed quite a lot in one of her earlier books written and published when she was a teenager

COMPLETELY different. If the artist wants to edit their own work, that is completely up to them.

Absolutely! But again - teachable moments. I find Esio Trot most uncomfortable but we had a good chat about Mr Hoppy’s behaviour and motivation and what would be better.

I agree , we should learn from history and if part of a book is offensive it opens up important debate about how things have changed for the better . If we cancel debate we cancel moving forward. Personally I don’t agree with changing original books . We can’t sanitise the world by removing things like “fat” do we think children are living in some kind of bubble and they won’t come across nasty words or actions ? And female to woman? You have to realise the intention behind this and it’s plain to see.

Or Fahrenheit 451.

If you are familiar with Dahl's work he does use a lot of visual description to describe how nasty/nice/horrible a character is. He doesn't just use the word fat or ugly, he will used all manners of words in his visual descriptions and I'm sure he described the grandma's mouth like a 'puckered up dog's bottom' in GMM. Racist language has no place in children's books, however with old text, as others' have suggested it can be a starting point for discussion about the wrongs of the past.

I worry what we are doing to children by censoring things to the extreme. I am a woman and I would not have a problem reading 'formidable female.' Because in Dahl's book, Matilda, I know he would have written equally offensive remarks about some of the horrible male characters (namely Mr Wormwood.'

As a book loving little girl I adored Matilda. She was brave, smart, courageous and taught me to stick up for myself and others and carry on enjoying studying, reading and learning. I know I can't be the only girl that got inspired by that book.

In the Magic Finger, it taught me that people can be arseholes and shooting animals for pleasure isn't big or clever and not to let people bully you, because they believe they are better than you. I could go through most of his books, but I won't.

The positives in Dahl's books far outweighs the negatives. If he described one character as a formidable female, I'll get over it as he wrote so many fantastic, brave female characters. He was a champion of children being the hero's in all his stories and I love him for that.

Rant over.

Absolutely this.

@Blueberry40

I’m genuinely confused here. Why is it not okay to use the word female anymore? Will using the word female be offensive to certain people?

Well it seems it is considered offensive. Honestly it is so bizarre. Who would imagine that calling someone female would be an issue 🤷🏻‍♀️

Yes - what used to be known as censors.

Not comfortable with this. It's not just the word female but basically any word with negative connotations - fat, ugly.

It's not that I don't agree with the sentiment 100%, it's that historical integrity is more important when it comes to older literature, and erasing words used paints over views and language of the time and pretends it doesn't exist.

They are also is quite short sighted and don't realise they are actually actively feeding into negative stereotypes of certain characteristics. Some people are fat and some are ugly. What exactly is so terribly wrong with these things that the words need to be stricken from books? Surely that's just perpetuating the narrative even further that badness is intrinsically linked to those traits. If you can't call a bad person also ugly, then you are imparting the sentiment that those two things are directly related.

The same way we wouldn't remove racial slurs from old books because it would rightly diminish the real experience of what people went through at that time (and still go through) we should not police language of archaic literature. Save that for modern writing and do better.

A pre or post script note on the language in the book a la Disney would preserve the book while allowing readers the opportunity to think critically about what has been written and why.

But the fact is that life is not perfect and actually we see all the terrible things that happen every day on the news , so books should be able to reflect that , after a certain age surely .

This is disgraceful.

I don’t even think books with truly offensive material should be edited. I think they should have a note in the front explaining the period/context of the book.

Changing words is completely 1984. I suppose the modern day thought police are active on Twitter though.

”Formidable female” was likely chosen to be alliterative. If the adjective had been warm-hearted or wicked, then the author probably would have chosen woman to alliterate. Ridiculous to try and sanitise books.

One agency that provides sensitivity readers has many areas of ‘expertise’ including “grey ace”, apparently a term describing someone who may only experience limited sexual attraction or on only one occasion.

What a joke. I want to read what the author wants me to read, not a bunch of censorious numbskulls.

It’s like Big Brother in 1984. These no nothing idiots are ruining the reforms which started as necessary but as usual became the possessions of extremists.

It is infantilising and hugely frustrating as part of reading and talking about books is understanding historical context. My 8 year old asked the other day about the use of 'gay' in Enid Blyton so we had a conversation about how the use of words evolve and also about being gay and how it was rarely mentioned in old books. If critical thinking goes by the wayside, in the future our children won't be able to consider current movements (e.g. queer theory) objectively and put it in context.

Have they removed the racist bits too?

I started reading Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator to one of my DC a few years ago, and I was shocked by a chapter which had a lot of racist “jokes” about the Chinese.

I’d have said that was more offensive than describing characters as fat or ugly.

Publishers have always asked people to rewrite things or chosen not to publish what they determine to be unacceptable. That is not censorship.

There has always been power in publishing. But we can at least all self publish now.

I read a dystopian fiction book recently where the content of books was changed to suit the regime in power, I didn't think I'd be living it.

It makes me so angry.